A legal defense association urged a Pennsylvania federal judge Monday to disqualify the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from representing a lawyer who claimed she was fired over mental health issues, saying the EEOC wanted to brand the defense group with a "scarlet letter."
The
Defender Association of Philadelphia
filed a motion for a hearing on whether to boot the EEOC off Megan Perez's Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII case, arguing that the agency had a "conflict of interest" with Perez and that it was hurting her by insisting that any settlement come in the form of a consent decree.
"The EEOC has no particularized need for a consent decree in this matter," the defender association said. "The EEOC's demand simply punishes the defender with a public 'scarlet letter,' while offering Ms. Perez absolutely no benefit."
The EEOC sued the Defender Association in April 2019, saying it fired Perez after she requested to be put on long-term disability leave. The legal group provides free legal services to low-income or underage people facing criminal cases in Philadelphia.
The EEOC said Perez was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in August 2017, and that those conditions were partially brought on by her work for the organization as a sexually violent predator specialist.
Perez had previously taken a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act and received short-term disability benefits, the EEOC said. And when she asked her supervisors in September 2017 for medical leave, and to be transferred to another unit, they approved, but she was still fired that November, the agency contended.
The association attempted to toss the suit, arguing that Perez requested indefinite leave that would have placed too much hardship on the organization, but the bid was ultimately shot down
in October 2019.
In its Monday filing, the defender association said the EEOC's "unrelenting demand" for a consent decree is damaging Perez's interests and causing a conflict of interest. The association said it has offered Perez "significant monetary relief" in a settlement offer — although it does not specify in the motion how much that offer is — that the agency rejected in order to compel the association to agree to a consent decree.
The EEOC is hurting Perez's earning potential by ignoring the group's offer to reinstate her, the defender group added.
"The EEOC's taxpayer-funded vendetta against the [association] is depriving Ms. Perez from the opportunity to serve those in great need in the Philadelphia community," the association said.
A consent decree, which typically outlines administrative remedies to alleged violations, such as enhanced training on top of an agreed payout, is unnecessary in this case because the association already has overhauled its policies and structure since the EEOC first filed its lawsuit, the association said. It has revamped its disability policy, it has all new executive management and a new human resources department and it has conducted ADA trainings, it said.
The association said the EEOC aims to burden it with additional unnecessary oversight, such as annual reports on any disability bias complaints it receives and the ability for the EEOC to schedule hearings on the organization's compliance with the decree any time.
"The EEOC's refusal to resolve this matter without a consent decree is placing its interests directly in conflict with Ms. Perez and harming her interests as beneficiary to any relief obtained through resolution of this matter," the association said.
An EEOC spokesperson declined to comment. Representatives of the association did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The association is represented by Richard R. Harris and Tara Param of
Littler Mendelson PC.
The EEOC is represented by in-house attorneys Maria Luisa Morocco, Joshua E. Zugerman and Debra M. Lawrence.
The case is EEOC v. Defender Association of Philadelphia, case number
2:19-cv-01803, in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Roy LeBlanc.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.